|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 19:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
Disclaimer: I'm generally not a fan of scams. I'm certainly not a fan of this particular scam.
Toshiro Ozuwara wrote: Ethics has never been the question. It's about harm, and how fragile human minds are when they are pushed around by a master manipulator.
The question of ethics and harm are intertwined; Typically, that which is ethical minimizes harm, and that which is unethical does not (and may even encourage/cause harm).
Parting a player from their things/isk (either by destroying it or through scamming) is something that causes harm. Whether a player loses a 2bil isk incursion ship to a suicide gank, or has 2bil isk scammed from them, they're going to be upset; That 2bil loss can translate into quite a large destruction of their in-game efforts.
If they're somewhat fragile to begin with, they may suffer some *real* psychological harm.
Toshiro Ozuwara wrote: You, among many others, are going to look pretty foolish if Erotica1 eventually drives someone to suicide with these antics.
So should this be our baseline, then: If a player's actions in game could conceivably be the proverbial straw that "drive" someone to commit suicide, then those actions should be a bannable offence?
Given that straight up loss of assets/isk could have this effect on people, CCP would suddenly find themselves on a slippery slope.
The question isn't whether or not this whole ordeal was morally and ethically defensible (because it's clearly not), or whether CCP could choose to ban people over these morally and ethically indefensible acts (apparently they have some provisions against anti-social behaviour in their EULA.... who knew?). Rather, the question is: Where do you draw the line?
How can you look at all the reprehensible actions that a player can take in this game and say "okay... those... those are all okay. I mean, yes, you lured a player into getting their ultra-rare 300bil isk ship, worth more than most players will ever have, into getting blown up by lying and deceiving them... and then recorded the results on PL comms for lulz.... That was totally okay! But then you went and conned a guy into giving you all his stuff and you made him sing! That's just... so wrong... so far and beyond wrong!"
How do you even begin to formulate such a rule?
"You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't upset anyone" --- well, shoot... there goes ganking and pvp in general, and this is about scamming being taken too far.... so let's refine it:
"You aren't allowed to scam" --- well, shoot... there goes corp espionage in general... most of the danger of wormholes... and probably the players' only way of taking down any player organization that becomes a little too entrenched... so we're still too broad here. This seems to be less about the scamming and more about the taunting and humiliation.
"If you're about to relieve someone of their in-game belongings, you aren't allowed to taunt them about it" --- hmmm.... we've just banned local smack.... well... what if we focus on the stringing along, and get rid of that? Something like:
"If you're about to relieve someone of their in-game belongings, you aren't allowed to make false promises to them" --- shoot.... now we've just mandated that all pirates have to honour ransoms... this isn't going well. Okay, lets focus on the tear extraction bit, then:
"You aren't allowed to lure someone on to external comms, record them and then rob them blind just so you can laugh about their reactions later on" -- This one might actually work.... except... well... apparently the orchestrator of the Revenant kill didn't actually record the reaction on comms. That was someone else. So this one gets pretty tough as well. I mean, how many people would have loved to have heard the reaction on BoB comms when that bit of treachery hit? I wasn't even playing then and I can say that I would love to have heard the raging!
I guess what it really comes down to is this:
What makes this scam worse than others? The fact that it went on so long? Because the scam itself is no worse than any other scam in Jita... So if it's just the fact that, at a certain point, many people think that it went "too far", then we just have to figure out when exactly that happened.
So was it after 30 minutes? Or 45? |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
2
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 22:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
Iudicium Vastus wrote: But the time, work, and personal investment is certainly real. And that is what's being held above a victim's head in the bonus room.
This is also what's being held above a victim's head as part of a ransom.
Again I ask; Where does one draw the line separating "garden variety" reprehensible behaviour from "bannable" reprehensible behaviour? |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
3
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 23:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Katkon Darnok wrote:This is not a EULA issue, it's an ethics issue.
Indeed, and that's what makes it so grey.
When you map it against a "properly calibrated moral compass" (whatever that is), then it's very much morally and ethically indefensible.
However, so is the majority of EVE, in that respect.
Think of it this way:
If you drive down my street, I cannot blow up your car, haul you out of the smoking wreckage and put a bullet through your head.
That sort of thing is frowned upon.
However, if you fly through my space, I can blow up your ride, haul your pod out of the smoking wreckage and put a bullet through your head.
That sort of thing is a social norm within EVE; Not only allowed, but encouraged.
One of the pillars of this game is to blow up things owned by other players/corporations/alliances/coalitions. To then further humiliate them by smacking in local is also largely accepted, just like tea bagging in your average FPS is largely accepted.
Ransoming someone's 3bil pod by making them sing a 2 minute long song on TS, only to then say "sorry mate, you didn't sing with enough heart" and then pop them .... that would also be largely accepted.
Enter the grey area. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
4
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 23:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
Abla Tive wrote:So, the important question to me is: Is this sort of behaviour acceptable to the EVE community?
Can a scam artist fleece a mark and then make the mark dance for hours in futile efforts to get their stuff back socially acceptable behaviour in EVE?
If so, then EVE is too dark for me.
The general consensus seems to be: "no it is not socially acceptable."
The question is whether or not that warrants a ban. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
4
|
Posted - 2014.03.26 23:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
olan2005 wrote: 7 . This kind of brutal humiliation of people and psychological bullying through ransom of assets , needs to be stated by CCP to be illegal when using out of game mechanisms. BASICALLY MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO INVITE PEOPLE TO TEAMSPEAK SO FORTH WHEN YOUR SCAMMING THEM . This keeps everything within the EULA by keeping it in-game. As such it can be handled by CCP within the EULA framework
This would likely have an unintended effect on awoxing and corporate espionage. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
4
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 00:47:00 -
[6] - Quote
olan2005 wrote:H aVo K wrote:olan2005 wrote: 7 . This kind of brutal humiliation of people and psychological bullying through ransom of assets , needs to be stated by CCP to be illegal when using out of game mechanisms. BASICALLY MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO INVITE PEOPLE TO TEAMSPEAK SO FORTH WHEN YOUR SCAMMING THEM . This keeps everything within the EULA by keeping it in-game. As such it can be handled by CCP within the EULA framework
This would likely have an unintended effect on awoxing and corporate espionage. Then ill adjust it Make so when scamming individual players and or griefing individual players you can only use IN-GAME mechanisms E.G i decide o become a scammer I choose to scam a person out of their isk and assets . I use out of game mechanisms to do so it is illegal E.G I decide to be a spy or thief within a corp/ alliance I use out of game mechanisms like Teamspeak . This is fine as my intent is to steal from a corporation, and inflict financial damage to a in-game entity , that consists of real people , but it is not specifically directed at them . It is done with the purpose of theft of goods not to DELIBERATELY cause someone psychological harm. Or it is done to benefit my alliance not out of intent to cause the poeple in said corp/alliance duress.
And you think you're good to go, but then get banned because all the stuff you stole, and laughed about on TS, actually belonged to the CEO of the corp.
I don't think we're going to be able to escape the issue that, when certain morally reprehensible behaviours are condoned by the rules, that excluding others by the rules, simply because they (quite rightly) leave a bad taste in your mouth becomes... well... harder to do in a way that leads to a fair and predictable application of those rules. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
6
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 01:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:Hi everyone,
I've been staying out of this thread partially because I've already given my opinions on this matter on my blog, partially to let players hash it out without it becoming about me, and partially because I have a damn hard time following EVE-O forum threads because of the way the software is designed.
I do have to say that I'm utterly stunned at the size of this thread. Without realizing it, I've clearly tapped into a vast river of player feeling about EVE Online culture and where that culture should go in the future. I don't shy away from that. I'm glad this conversation is happening. I also want to stress right out front that I am not anti-scam, anti-suicide gank, anti-non-consensual PvP, or anti-gray areas in EVE. I am for all of these things and anyone who tells you different is lying or wrong.
But there are limits. And Erotica 1 and his "agents" have crossed them.
I want to thank everyone who sent me e-mails or EVE mails in support of my blog post. My position on this matter remains unchanged. Erotica 1 and his "agents" have no place in the EVE Online community. This isn't about scamming people. Scamming people is fine and I have no problem with it. But in the bonus room, in ten minutes the scam is OVER. The scammers have won. It's the other 135 or more minutes that I object to. Why do they have to prolong this sick, reprehensible behavior to these lengths? Why do they have to do it to dozens or hundreds of people? Why do they have to train a small army of people to do it? When is enough enough?
I feel CCP should permaban Erotica 1 and seize all of his assets to send a clear and strong message that this kind of activity will simply not be tolerated in the EVE Online community. Then turn on his "agents": temp bans, asset seizures, and negative ISK balances there. The agents will be simple enough to track down: pull Erotica 1's wallet. Assume everyone who sends him a large amount of ISK is a victim. Investigate contracts created by those victims. Anyone to whom a contract is sent is a target to be investigated.
Again, this isn't about the scams. Scams are fine. This is about sick, reprehensible behavior and psychological harassment of CCP's customers. CCP has the right to protect their customers and decide what is and what is not acceptable behavior in New Eden. CCP: please make it clear for EVE's second decade that this kind of thing is simply unacceptable in our community.
That's all. Thanks again to everyone involved in this discussion! I'm glad it's taking place. I'll continue to try to keep up as best I can.
I agree with the sentiment; a line was crossed.
I worry about the consequences of a ban, in terms of precedent and rules changes/clarifications. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
10
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 14:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:E1 & Co. just made a cardinal mistake of pissing on the united states service men and women.
God knows i disagree with some things US gov't does, but I never disrespect and belittle the brave men and women who are sent to do dangerous jobs overseas.
For your little sadist circle to laugh about some very serious issues facing the service men and women is not cool. Especially since EVE Online is where a large number of them choose to spend their free time.
But keep digging.
You're trying to equate the mental trauma of losing $20 worth of assets in a video game and being asked to perform humiliating stunts to get it back.... with the mental trauma of having to watch your friends get turned into pink mist when an IED goes off....
And you actually think that E1 & Co. are the ones being disrespectful to those in the service? Are you ******* kidding me? Get some goddamned perspective; The hyperbole you've been spewing in this thread has been as disgusting, if not more, than the actions that spawned the blog post to begin with.
Every 11 Nov, I drink 3 shots for 3 dead friends who died in Afghanistan. And you're trying to tell me that losing a goddamned game of monopoly is just as traumatic? You disgust me. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
11
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 15:00:00 -
[9] - Quote
Talon SilverHawk wrote: Its not about Eve its about being a decent human being.
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18375933
What did that poor Caracal pilot do to deserve being ganged up on and killed by you and your friends?
How could a decent person kill another just because they had wandered into "the wrong" space? |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
13
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 15:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Druthlen wrote:H aVo K wrote:Talon SilverHawk wrote: Its not about Eve its about being a decent human being.
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=18375933What did that poor Caracal pilot do to deserve being ganged up on and killed by you and your friends? How could a decent person kill another just because they had wandered into "the wrong" space? Oh we have someone that is using ingame villainy to try to justify out of game villainy. So because someone did it in a game should E1 be allowed to hurt others in rl? Please do tell.
And if I hurt your real-life feelings by smacking in local after I blow up your ship, am I now just as guilty?
Don't get me wrong, I think that the whole concept of a "bonus room" crosses a line. The problem lies in the fact that not a single person in this thread has been able to define where that line lay, and I don't want to find myself getting banned for saying "lol noob" after blowing up someone's **** just because, through some magical combination of E1's sadism, and Sohkar's utter stupidity, this shitshow came about and made everyone nauseous. |
|
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
15
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 15:27:00 -
[11] - Quote
Crumplecorn wrote:Alp Khan wrote:You are trying to make it appear as if Erotica 1 does not do all that mental torture and abuse Asking someone to sing = mental abuse and torture I remember being mentally abused and tortured and some birthday parties when I was a kid actually....
Not to mention every goddamned time we had to do the "chicken dance" at christmas concerts as a kid... |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
16
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 15:42:00 -
[12] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Thank you for your inquiry
ESRB greatly values your comments and questions, however due to the high volume of inquiries we receive, we may not be able to respond specifically to each and every one. We recommend that you review our FAQ and other areas of our website for answers to common questions.
We truly appreciate your interest in and support of the ESRB and will continue to work diligently to ensure that computer and video game consumers have the information necessary to make educated purchase decisions.
What did you write?
"Dear ESRB, I know you don't rate the online interactions of any online game that currently exists because it would quickly dissolve into the kind of morass that can be seen here < link to this thread >... but I think you need to increase the rating of EVE to Mature due to the online interactions that you don't rate."
Actually, given the hyperbole you've been spewing, I'm sure there's a "please think of the children" thrown in there for good measure as well.
Let me know how it all works out for you. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
18
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 15:56:00 -
[13] - Quote
Batelle wrote:If you want civility to be a rule, then we can add that. But its currently not a rule.
I've a bad feeling that it may become one because of this, and that makes me nervous.
It should make anyone who engages in non-consensual pvp a bit nervous. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
18
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 16:41:00 -
[14] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:I welcome you, your alts and your gang of emotional rapists out of my game. Get out, dont come back.
You are essentially the archetype of those who wish to protect the stupid from themselves.
E1's ilk are essentially the archetype of those who wish to fleece the stupid.
Between the two of you, you represent everything wrong with society; I wish you'd both leave. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
19
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 17:03:00 -
[15] - Quote
Fredfredbug4 wrote: Asking them to do or say humiliating things is where Erotica 1 crosses the line from scammer to sadist.
Part of the reason why I love EVE so much is that when you lose at PVP, you actually LOSE something. It's more tangible than just having to respawn.
I love that I'm potentially ruining someone's day a little by blowing up their space pixels.
That's a sadistic pleasure.
Experiencing even the slightest bit of schadenfreude is also a sadistic pleasure.
So stop bandying about with terms like "morally indefensible", "sadistic", or "psychological torture".
If you've ever committed corp espionage, you've done something that's morally indefensible.
if you've ever performed any activity whatsoever to try and make a person not want to play the game, you've set yourself to find a way to torture their psyche.
If you've ever pvped, or taken pleasure at someone's downfall in EVE (like Mittens being kicked from the CSM), then you've done something sadistic.
The question to be asked is: In a game where you can spend a year, or more, becoming a close friend of people just so you can shank them in the back when it matters most, how is this worse?
... that's not rhetorical. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
22
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 17:17:00 -
[16] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Frankly the act of willfully submitting yourself to acute pain and humiliation of your own free will, when you are free to leave at any time, is called Masochism... not torture. As demonstrated in the link in my sig, the circumstances whereby a person enters into a situation where torture is enacted on them, is immaterial to whether it is torture. And as also demonstrated in the link in my sig, torture does not predicate the victim being restricted from leaving the situation in which he is being tortured. Neither of these considerations are material to whether what is being done to them, constitutes torture.
The circumstances whereby a person enters a situation where physical pain is inflicted on them are wholly material to whether or not it is considered torture.
Were that not the case, the millions of people who practice BDSM would be ******, and guys like Jay Wiseman would be out of a job.
Much like with BDSM, the person having the pain inflicted on them can call at any point and have it stop. If they choose not to, and get hurt, we enter into a grey area.
Sohkar provided tacit consent to everything that went on simply by giving all of his isk, and then further giving every shred of assets over. He could have withdrawn that consent at any time by simply leaving teamspeak. Not doing so was his choice. The fact that E1 took it too far is immaterial to the question of whether or not Sohkar could have ended it at any time by simply leaving. That doesn't absolve E1 of any wrongdoing, it just means that your claims of it being "torture" are patently absurd. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
22
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 17:23:00 -
[17] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:LordOfDespair wrote:The fact that you can walk away doesn't excuse scumbag behavior. No, but it does mitigate it.
Exactly.
If I'm a scumbag to people IRL, I'm likely not going to go to jail for that.
If I torture people IRL, I'm likely going to go to jail for the rest of my life.
There's a subtle but important distinction there ffs. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
23
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 17:28:00 -
[18] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote: The examples you have listed are not morally indefensible, psychological torture or sadistic just as all the examples of irony in one of Alanis Morrisettes songs are not in fact ironic.
No, I can guarantee you that I do, in fact, take some sadistic pleasure in blowing up another person's stuff. So I disagree in your assessment of whether or not those words apply to the actions I mentioned.
Disregarding that, for a moment, I'd like to know when, exactly, those terms apply to the recording. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
24
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 18:01:00 -
[19] - Quote
LordOfDespair wrote:"The National Crime Prevention Council defines cyberbullying as GÇ£the process of using the Internet, cell phones or other devices to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person."
Hes a cyberbully, records it for his other cyberbully friends to see. Simple as that.
Agreed. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
26
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 18:13:00 -
[20] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:LordOfDespair wrote:baltec1 wrote:LordOfDespair wrote:
Yeah, way to make us all look bad E1. GTFO.
Those people say the same thing about every scam they see. Also most ganks. And all the fights. Plus that time we deadzoned that station. Also anything goons do. In short these people will never play a game like EVE anyway. Speculation. Also: Ganking, fighting, scamming =/= Harrassment and Public Embarrassment You are arguing doing this is harassment.
It is.
... and it's ******* hilarious XD |
|
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
30
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 19:08:00 -
[21] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Kristalll wrote:So it's exactly like if I point you and ask you to sing a song on TS3 or a I kill you, right? No, its like we will torture you until you leave the Bonus Room, and we win.
It's not torture.
Torture, is the immense headache inflicted on anyone who tries to follow the logic in the idiocy you are spewing. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
30
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 19:23:00 -
[22] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:H aVo K wrote:It's not torture. Have you read the post linked in my sig? I would encourage you to do so.
Yes.
It's flawed.
Amnesty International's definition does not include "psychological pain" in their definition. Furthermore, even the best of analogies are fundamentally flawed, in that they're only ever provided as a means of mapping an existing complex situation onto a simpler situation, which means that they can't ever encapsulate the complexities of the original situation.
In essence, you found an incredibly tenuous link between what happened and a high shock-value word like "torture" and have been parroting your nonsense since making that amazing discovery.
If you want to argue that what happened pushes the boundaries of the sandbox in ways that detract from the game, then go for it; You'd likely have some ground to stand on. I'd even agree with you.
If you want to argue that this game would be improved by banning the people who'd go to that length, then go for it; There are rules that cover harassment, and it's less of a stretch to claim that that's what occurred. I'd even agree with you on this, in principle... though I have *MASSIVE* reservations on it, because of the number of unintended consequences it might have on the more "acceptable" forms of "consensual non-consent" that come up in this game.
However, claiming that an oversized-child having a freak out because someone outplayed him in that sandbox is somehow evidence of torture is beyond absurd. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
31
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 19:28:00 -
[23] - Quote
Qalix wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Come. Give me all your assets and enter my game. There I will abuse you for 100hrs if necessary with a unending demands that amuse my sadism, until you leave, and I win. Many pages back I said you should stop posting. Not because you're wrong, but because there is nothing left to say. But you just won't listen. Now you have become the subject of the thread. Can you not see how you're being manipulated? You've played into your opponents' hands by constantly and consistently moving the focus off what ought to be a simple statement. If you can't recognize the psychological game that's being played with you, well, you make me sad. Good luck.
He's not being manipulated.
I'm siding with the sandbox.
I can't stand hisec scamming and griefing, and, at face value, am tempted to agree with those who think that this game would be better off without people whose sole method of gameplay involves those aspects.... but I realize that that's a slippery slope, since many of us engage in gameplay that touches on those aspects; few people have hands that are perfectly clear in this regard.
So why am I publicly disagreeing with Salvos on this, when I don't actually have a dog in this fight?
Because the stupidity of what he's posting is offensive, and I'm falling prey to this: https://xkcd.com/386/ |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
33
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 20:01:00 -
[24] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Anne Dieu-le-veut wrote:So, if a gate camp scrams a player and the ransom is *ten* songs on TS, is that torture? You misunderstand how the Bonus Room functions. It is not ten songs. It is an unending line of arbitrary demands, any of which if you refuse to perform or choose to leave the Bonus Room, Erotica1 wins. This process is hastened by abusing the victim during it, and thereby made "amusing" to a group of players who get off on listening to the suffering of the victim trying to cope with what is being done to him. There is no actual way to win, unless you are an associate of Erotica1 and are running through the Bonus Room for purposes of creating a theater so that he can maintain the false legitimacy that anyone can ever (legitimately) win the Bonus Room. Its important that you understand the difference.
It is important that you understand that taking part in an unwinnable game doesn't mean you're being tortured.
....
.... and I can't believe you're forcing me to actually do some google searches to discredit the drivel you've been spewing on here, but here it is:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340
As used in this chapterGÇö (1) GÇ£tortureGÇ¥ means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
38
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 20:32:00 -
[25] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote: Some time ago a foreigner asked me about how it was possible that in America's past, so many "Cowboys" (though it was not that simple - it was just one job to have in those days but work with me here) had pistols and rifles and yet there was still civility.
Part of the reason for this was that while property rights and the ability to commit violence were common, nobody felt they had a right to humiliate anybody.
Therefore, if you found stranger on your land, you asked him where he was going and what he was doing and if he needed help and you were polite.
Even if you were in your right to instead run him off at gunpoint, or even shoot at his feet to make him dance while laughing at him. Sure that might have been illegal too but if there was no sheriff or the sheriff was on your side, you could still get away with it.
For the most part the "Wild West" was not so wild.
As was explained to me by people old enough to remember what their parents (who came in on wagons), if you went and humiliated someone, anybody, for any reason, you risked your hay barn mysteriously catching fire that night.
Not that it would be the proper thing to do, even if legal, but it would be expected. You can't rob a man of his dignity and not expect something bad to happen. So people were more polite because for all you knew, that person you could be messing with might be wanted in 7 states for something.
So while the incidents are rare, people getting physical revenge over online actions seldom happen with much surprise to any observers because the common sense still exists, that you cannot drive someone into madness and expect everything to remain on the rails logically and legally past that point.
Frankly I think that scammers who take it to a "bonus round" are playing with fire. I know I know, everybody thinks "the law" is so powerful these days because the governments act like laws written on paper (while ironically ignoring those other laws written on paper - the ones meant to protect our rights) are "God" with help from the media. But as those of us who train people in dealing with violence can say, where laws are written in posh offices surrounded by armed guards and where they exist in the mind of someone who is driven to madness might as well be two different dimensions where neither law nor reason has any substance in the other.
Hence I too would not be surprised if something happened or eventually happened. I don't condone it, but the ninnying and victimism around it wont' be in the mind of someone being attacked if it happens (their thoughts won't be "Hey I can get him banned from EO now! I'm leet!" It's going to be "OMG OMG *pee in pants OMG OMG").
And so at the least, even if one can argue that E1 did "nothing wrong", we must address these kinds of actions because if the day comes that someone is so enraged from them that they do track down the scammer (ganker, corp thief or whatever the case is) and attacks them, do we want Eve Online to be the game being mentioned in that news report? Such attacks are still rare enough to make rounds on the news and get linked on Drudge Report.
Therein lies the *real* issue - a scammer who preys on the stupidity of people coming into Jita, using a character that never undocks, is largely immune to any form of meaningful retribution.
It's too *safe* a profession. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
40
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 20:41:00 -
[26] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:H aVo K wrote:It is important that you understand that taking part in an unwinnable game doesn't mean you're being tortured Then what is the point of the unwinnable game?
That's a question for those that run it.
You've used the word "immaterial" a lot in this thread, one would think that you'd understand what it means.
The fact that those who run the unwinnable game may or may not have desires that could be described as being "perverse" has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the whole experience constitutes torture.
You could say... it's immaterial. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
41
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 20:51:00 -
[27] - Quote
Louis Robichaud wrote:I'll be honest with you, I'm not sure where the line is exactly. It doesn't matter though. E1 crossed it by a mile. Anyone with a shred of decency can see that.
That is why all the arguing about minutiae and the exact definition of the law or EULA is quite revealing.
is it?
I'd like to see this sort of gameplay removed, or at least made less *safe* for those who engage in it. I mean, scamming idiots in Jita is MORE SAFE than MINING IN HISEC .... there's just something fundamentally wrong with that, y'know?
... but I worry that simply banning him out of hand under the auspices of some new or existing rule could be bad.
... I worry that suddenly people who do similar activities (like this hilarious example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCEilTdoyR0 ) will suddenly find themselves getting banned.
I think that that would be bad for the game.
So, yes, the minutiae is the important part of this whole thread. Those minutiae are the very reason why this whole shitshow hasn't been locked yet, and why CCP said they're paying close attention to the thread.
They're important. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
42
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 20:56:00 -
[28] - Quote
Volar Kang wrote:Personally, I hope to see Erotica not get banned and then get on the CSM. I think you will see the meta game take the final rug toward ludicrous speed when his real name is made public and one of the players who shares his mental instability goes to his house to meet him and his family.
On the other hand, CCP might want to just ban him for his own good.
Or give scam victims some way of exacting meaningful retribution on the scammers IN GAME.
... though I'm assuming that that's where "walking in station" was going >_> |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
42
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:01:00 -
[29] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:H aVo K wrote:You could say... it's immaterial. I'd say its quite material, when it is the mechanism employed against the victim in order to force them out of the Bonus Room, in order to win it.
So by that definition (that you're ignoring) that I linked you, it's only torture if the pain is inflicted on someone that they physically control.... and because they're using it to push them out of the bonus room (and outside their "control"), it's torture.
Your logic is *actually* causing me pain. I'm not even exaggerating. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
42
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:27:00 -
[30] - Quote
Kristalll wrote: Really, once you've lost a jump freighter because you were too stupid to dock up you get over really caring much about the space pixels.
ahahahaha.... I feel like you could be writing about me, specifically, there.
So true, though ^_^ |
|
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
42
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:32:00 -
[31] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:Ya I can totally see how that wouldn't be abused. Let me just type up a blog about this guy I don't like, and get all my friends to dislike him too. Then Ill ask that those friends get their friends to dislike him too. Maybe one of them will write a thread on ~Popular Game~ about that player and we can all complain about him. Now he has a red gamer card, and I have won in my vendetta against him. Learn to read. "We designed the algorithm so it won't penalise you for bad reports over a few weeks of play. The system also adjusts for false reports from people that might intentionally report someone of greater skill or for other griefing purposes," said Mr Dunn.
Until they say something to the effect of "we specifically designed this to resist the types of abuses that an EVE player would subject the system to", I'm going to go ahead and say that it's safe to call it a system that's easily gamed.
.... actually... to be honest... even if they did say that "we specifically designed this system to resist the types of abuses that an EVE player would subject the system to", I'd be inclined to say that it would fail just as spectacularly as Oracle's "Can't break it, can't break in" campaign. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
43
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 21:39:00 -
[32] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:Challenge: Try to add something new to 300+ page thread.
hmmm
I have had enough of the slippery slope, I want to go the other way . . . we have a mountain to climb, all of us in Eve
I want Eve to be a better game, every day a bit better than the last.
Now you may expect some pithy carebear stuff about banning scamming or ganking or the like . . . no. That is part of the game same as trumping an ace or forking a king and rook are parts of other games. The game is a combat focus and I accept that the combat can be on many levels UNTIL it gets personal. I shot your ship, somebody took your sov. All fine.
Now if it gets to threatening you, your family, your pets. WAAAY over the line.
Problem is that the line moves for each person, each case. Call one guy names and he laughs it off. Use the same name or derogatory term on another and you have again found the crossing of the line.
HTFU? Why? Why do we have to close our eyes and allow the game to get worse? Why can we not turn around and start climbing? Oh we may have to cut some dead weight that is holding us back but look up, look ahead.
climb
oh an don't forget to vote
m
/facepalm
Really? That's your idea of contributing something new? Shifting the focus back onto Sohkar's breaking point? |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
43
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 22:02:00 -
[33] - Quote
LUMINOUS SPIRIT wrote:Sapheni wrote:Obviously it would need something to prevent abuse, but the concept is good. In EVE players with a red card could lose forum posting and local posting 'privileges'. No more forum trolls and no more scammers in Jita. Self regulation 4tw. +1 See, now we are on the right track. After the banhammer, the task for next CSM is to work out a system like this I think. Maybe some good will happen from this tragedy after all.
Can we poke you with a stick if the ban hammer actually falls, but falls in a way that you aren't expecting? |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
45
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 22:08:00 -
[34] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote: Funny, I don't recall mentioning HIS breaking point.
Really? Here, I'll refresh your memory:
Mike Azariah wrote:Now if it gets to threatening you, your family, your pets. WAAAY over the line.
I believe that more accurately describes Sohkar and not E1.
Join the discussion, rather than just attempting to use vague language in order to pander to all sides in a thinly-veiled attempt to garner more votes off of this foolishness. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
45
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 22:13:00 -
[35] - Quote
Xuixien wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:Xuixien wrote: If I asked you to look up the word "derogatory", would that be crossing the line?
Nope, it would be appropriate, I have a migraine today and language skills are the first to go (along with sight in my right eye) Derogatory is far too soft a term for what I meant. thank you, now what word was I trying for? m So... This proves my point. Thank you. I ask him to look up a word and he's like, "oh man, maybe I did use the wrong word." and is not bothered by it. Someone else is asked to look up a word, and they flip out - now the person who asked them "crossed a line".
Now now.... let's not get distracted from our efforts of fixing the problem by things like a discussion of the details defining exactly how it's a problem! We need knee-jerk reactions, and not well thought out responses to events in game. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
46
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 22:50:00 -
[36] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:To show complete faith
Ok. How is it exactly that the "client" is required to show "complete faith" for purposes of winning?
It's like you're trying really really hard to establish that the sole purpose of the BR is solely to entertain the people running it.
This will be a masterstroke of genius on your part if you pull it off because everyone is under the assumption that that's not already the case.... and this will like.... totally shatter those assumptions. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
48
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 23:07:00 -
[37] - Quote
Dani Dusette wrote: But it's legit gameplay within the boundary of this game. Unlike the issue which this thread is about.
Maybe you can answer where so many have failed, then:
What makes this gameplay less legit than other acceptable types of "tear extraction"? |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
49
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 23:21:00 -
[38] - Quote
Coffee Rocks wrote:H aVo K wrote:Dani Dusette wrote: But it's legit gameplay within the boundary of this game. Unlike the issue which this thread is about. Maybe you can answer where so many have failed, then: What makes this gameplay less legit than other acceptable types of "tear extraction"? Go back and read the last 220+ pages and numerous blog posts that are now out there on this subject (Ripard, myself, Mabrik, etc etc). It's been said. Also, NOT gameplay. Scamming? Gameplay. Drawing the victim out till he snaps? F**king sick.
So if a coalition comes into my rental space and camps me in station, while taunting me in local until I snap... does that count? Or does it only count if they record it on teamspeak? |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
49
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 23:26:00 -
[39] - Quote
Ssieth wrote:H aVo K wrote:Dani Dusette wrote: But it's legit gameplay within the boundary of this game. Unlike the issue which this thread is about. Maybe you can answer where so many have failed, then: What makes this gameplay less legit than other acceptable types of "tear extraction"? OK - I'll take a punt at this one. Other types of 'tear extraction' - ganking etc is generally about targetting in-game assets in-game. It is an extension of other in-game activities. This is about enticing someone to an external comms channel for the specific purpose of publically humiliating them.
is that the line, then? The fact that public humiliation was the end-state sought by those pulling the scam, rather than just a byproduct of whatever they were doing? |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
52
|
Posted - 2014.03.27 23:50:00 -
[40] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Coffee Rock wrote: Ban him, those involved in the bonus room crap, and all alt accounts.
Ban him for what, exactly?
For being smart.
- For having the foresight to ensure that their marks are called "clients" to make things sound more legitimate.
- For having the foresight to ensure that their clients are treated with the utmost respect, while they're being asked to do things that strip away their dignity, so that everyone else can laugh at them
- For having the foresight to keep their actions within the grey area that is EVE morality (or lack thereof)
- For knowing that this would eventually happen, and making sure to take every precaution to make it hard to nail them for any wrongdoing
- For acting in a way that's vile, yet hard to write rules against. Rules that would inadvertently hammer those who simply partake in the more run of the mill, morally ambiguous stuff like murder, extortion, and theft, that take place in EVE at all times.
- For finding a way of doing something that *feels* too personal, without actually resorting to anything that actually *is* personal
To me, it honestly almost seems like they were trying too hard to keep their noses clean, because they knew that what they were doing was crossing the line.
My gut feel is that that alone... that skirting of rules in order to be able to do something a bit edgier than just run of the mill scamming.... that that is worth seizing assets and banning for. Simply because it feels like they're playing a game with the anti-harassment portion of the rules.
Personally, I think the part that bothers me the most about all of this, is that I'm *in* the "ban 'em" camp, but can't come up with a good explanation for why that wouldn't encompass half of the people playing EVE at any one time. |
|
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
55
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 00:19:00 -
[41] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote: Eve should not be a safe happy fairyland where everyone is lovely, but neither should the Sandbox be a cesspit.
EVE *isn't* a cesspit. Hisec is a cesspit.
Being able to scam with impunity because you never need to undock, and no one can do anything to attain retribution, except block you; That makes it a cesspit.
Being able to grief PVEers in a way that leaves them helpless, because neutral reps can't be fixed without breaking hisec incursions; That makes it a cesspit.
Being able to grief PVEers using a 3 day old character on a trial account, because destroyers are too easy to skill into and ships like the gnosis exist; That makes it a cesspit.
That is what makes people snap. That's what makes people resort to RL threats; it's all they have.
There's nothing to stop a guy like Ricimer Scipio ( http://evevillain.com/guides/6-safari-guide-for-new-villains ) from doing this sort of thing to a corp over and over and over and over. And if he's smart about it, the corp will never know that it was him.
That doesn't add to the game.
That's not "EVE is harsh, L2LoveIt or gtfo".
That's a group of bullies hiding behind bullshit hisec mechanics that protect them from the people they're picking on. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
58
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 01:11:00 -
[42] - Quote
Chibs Telford wrote:Xuixien wrote:Chibs Telford wrote:~snip~ It's not torture because it fits no actual definition of torture. tor-+ture [tawr-cher] noun 1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. 2. a method of inflicting such pain. 3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone. 4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony. 5. a cause of severe pain or anguish. I call your attention to numbers 2, 4 and 5
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2340
As used in this chapterGÇö (1) GÇ£tortureGÇ¥ means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
I call your attention to the bolded and underlined portion of the text.
We've already established that it wasn't torture. Please choose another catchy and polarizing word, which has already had 20+ pages written about it, and try again. |
H aVo K
Tycheon Industries Northern Associates.
59
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 01:54:00 -
[43] - Quote
Cha'ka Khan wrote:Xuixien wrote:Cha'ka Khan wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Cha'ka Khan wrote:DUDE!!!!!!!!! HOW MUCH CRACK DO YOU SMOKE? There is NO issue here. dude lost his **** being stupid. GET THE **** OVER IT ALREADY!!!!!!! Dopeys getting mad. Dont smash your desk, now. I am not mad. Just extremely disappointed in the supreme stupidity of yourself and the people that are blindly listening to you. Well that settles it: Salvos is a psychopath. Can i claim that he is torturing me because his lack of intelligence hurts me physically?
I tried that already: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4402205#post4402205 |
|
|
|